/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

My bet that first few posts will be LARPers defending m*narchies, even though the thread is not about this, so I'll just [-] this thread.

No offense.

>>569211

>Did the Americans disobey God when they rebelled against England?

No, because they had a state. The continental congress held divine right just as much as the king of England and Scotland

>>569214

But weren't the Patriots committing treason against the British Crown under which they were subjects?

>>569211

Meh I dunno how bad it really was. Seems like the colonies blew things out of proportion. A lot of the complaints on the declaration of independence are pretty vague. Seems that they mostly didn't want to pay war debt from what I've read tbh.

>>569211

Justified or not, I'm really glad they did it.

>>569215

Were they subjects of the British Crown? I'm to understand they were citizens of the United States of America. Here, read this http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

>Is it ever right for a Christian to resist the government for any reason?

if agents of the civil government are committing treason.

>>569221

The “United States” didn’t exist yet, though. The whole point of the Declaration of Independence was to declare their separation from the British Crown. How could the Declaration make any sense if they weren’t British subjects in the first place?

I think that the revolutionary war was entirely avoidable.

>>569233

It existed when they declared independence. However, though an official nation-state hadn't yet been declared, the continental congress was representing the 13 colonies.

>>569239

>Battles of Lexington and Concord

There was already armed resistance before the declaration was drafted.

>>569250

The continental army didn't even exist yet, and the militias were defending themselves against British attack

>>569268

Should the martyrs under Nero (who was in power when Romans was written) have defended themselves?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! The United States is a (((freemasonic))) hellhole and has been from the beginning. It was always considered an "Enlightenment" experiment and the whole purpose of America was to prove how "rational" and "free" a godless, "enlightened" society could be. Many of the founders were either open god-hating atheists (such as Thomas Paine) or believed that religion should only be used to control the populace (such as Thomas Jefferson). In addition, just like all republican revolutions, the American revolutionaries committed worse atrocities while rebelling (and afterwards with their fledgling state) than the British ever did there. The British also abolished slavery in 1815 without firing a single bullet, so the American Civil War wouldn't've happened either.

>>569218

Yep. In fact, (just like the French revolution) many of the claims that the republicans used to justify the war were either blown out of proportion, blatant half-truths, or downright lies.

>>569214

>No, because they had a state. The continental congress held divine right just as much as the king of England and Scotland

WEW LAD

That's total BS, the colonies were subjects of the British crown and therefore committed High Treason.

>>569268

>le "self defense from the british meme"

If that's true, then why did the revolutionaries immediately invade Canada?

The truth is that they fully expected the Revolutionary War to be a war of expansion where all of British North America would be part of a new Republic. That's why the Articles of Confederation even contained a provision to admit Canada as a 14th state to the new country!

>>569268

You pretty much admitted that they were committing treason.

>>569291

I'm no expert, but I'm fairly certain that the martyrs under Nero were not trained soldiers being attacked by other trained soldiers as a result of increasing political hostilities

>>569293

>That's total BS

not an argument

>If that's true, then why did the revolutionaries immediately invade Canada?

I don't see how a military campaign a couple months later proves that well established historical facts didn't actually happen. Concord and Lexington was a British attack, that is a fact.

>The truth is that they fully expected the Revolutionary War to be a war of expansion where all of British North America would be part of a new Republic. That's why the Articles of Confederation even contained a provision to admit Canada as a 14th state to the new country!

Pure anachronism. You are reading later events backwards in an attempt to support a conspiracy theory

>>569294

When did I do that?

>>569307

>not an argument

Can you even point out the error in what I'm saying? They were subjects of the British Crown and therefore were committing High Treason by rebelling.

>I don't see how a military campaign a couple months later proves that well established historical facts didn't actually happen. Concord and Lexington was a British attack, that is a fact.

I never said that, you fool! And the fact of the matter is that British sent troops into Massachusetts because the colony was basically in open rebellion after the Boston Tea Party. After the British Parliament passed the Massachusetts Governance Act, John Hancock and a few of his revolutionary buddies (including the Governor of Massachusetts) declared a provincial government separate from the British Crown. They even wrote a letter to the 1st Continental Congress to brag about how they were fighting the British!

>Pure anachronism. You are reading later events backwards in an attempt to support a conspiracy theory

That's not a conspiracy theory, the Americans were actually distributing pro-revolutionary propaganda tracts for months in Canada, and the 2nd Continental Congress even sent letters to Canada to get them on their side before the conflict. When the Canadians rejected, they invaded. It's a pretty clear-cut issue here.

>>569211

Read the declaration of independence, then ask your question again.

>>569211

no

>>569313

>They were subjects of the British Crown and therefore were committing High Treason by rebelling.

They were the representatives of the people of the 13 colonies and as such owed their obedience to them first and the king second. Additionally, they were committed to upholding the law, which had been broken by the parliament.

>I never said that

So then you admit it was self defense?

>And the fact of the matter is that British sent troops into Massachusetts because the colony was basically in open rebellion after the Boston Tea Party

Was it open rebellion for them to resist the attempt of parliament to strip them of their liberties and prosperity?

>After the British Parliament passed the Massachusetts Governance Act

Which was, of course, unlawful

>including the Governor of Massachusetts

I find that very interesting, considering Thomas Hutchinson was a staunch loyalist, unyielding opponent of the Patriots, and, most importantly, on a ship bound for England when the Massachusetts provincial congress met.

>declared a provincial government separate from the British Crown

They claimed autonomy, not independence.

>That's not a conspiracy theory

The idea the American Revolution happened as a freemasonic crusade to conquer British North America to encourage godlessness (and presumably for wealth and power) is not a conspiracy theory?

>the Americans were actually distributing pro-revolutionary propaganda tracts for months in Canada, and the 2nd Continental Congress even sent letters to Canada to get them on their side before the conflict. When the Canadians rejected, they invaded

I'm not going to judge these claims because I do not know if they are true or false, (however, I do see reason to doubt them, considering you've shown great ignorance of key figures) but there is a perfectly sensible military (not political) reason for the invasion. It was no secret the British would support their position from Canada, as they did. If they had successfully driven them out, they would have had a much easier time of the war.

>>569211

No it was not, they had no permission from their authority, the british king, to leave his authority. America got retaken by the (((british))) crown in 1912 with the creation of the federal reserve bank and subsidies along with the creation of the united states corperation after the passing of the 13th amendment in the 1860's after the american civil war. Technically america has been a kike owned corperation since the 1860's with their entire currency supply being completely in control of (((them))) since 1912.

America is most likely the modern day babylon with (((isreal))) being the spiritual sodom and egypt spoken of in revelation 11:8. The third temple has been completed btw.

The American revolution was in total accordance with the will of the god that America's founding fathers worshipped, the Great Architect, Jahbulon, the creator deity of Freemasonry. As for the will of the Christian God, your answer should be apparent.

>>569366

>They were the representatives of the people of the 13 colonies and as such owed their obedience to them first and the king second. Additionally, they were committed to upholding the law, which had been broken by the parliament.

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

>Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

>Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

>So then you admit it was self defense?

>disobey governing authority and rebel

>they send in troops

>SELF DEFENSE! REEE

>The idea the American Revolution happened as a freemasonic crusade to conquer British North America to encourage godlessness (and presumably for wealth and power) is not a conspiracy theory?

<So [strawman] isn't a conspiracy theory!

Wow, really made me think

>I'm not going to judge these claims because I do not know if they are true or false, (however, I do see reason to doubt them, considering you've shown great ignorance of key figures)

It's clearly recorded in "A History of the American Revolution" by John Alden.

>>569370

this

>>569293

>The British also abolished slavery in 1815 without firing a single bullet, so the American Civil War wouldn't've happened either.

<imply the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery.

Overall, I'd agree with you. But I'd also add that the population of the US was Christian, unlike it's founders and leaders.